While I applaud and appreciate the work Kazman and Budman are doing, I don't think the commute video would be appropriate to display lane sharing, at least not the first :53 as the rider crosses over the fog line and into the gore. This is illegal in California and is not lane sharing/splitting.

While I applaud and appreciate the work Kazman and Budman are doing, I don't think the commute video would be appropriate to display lane sharing, at least not the first :53 as the rider crosses over the fog line and into the gore. This is illegal in California and is not lane sharing/splitting.

You are correct and it makes a good talking point. And I can honestly say that in 4 years it has only happened twice. I have been there once when moto CHP was giving a ticket and was almost at a complete stop and car stopped short. I bobble a bit swinging the bars back and forth but then got my balance back. He was staring at me the entire time and when I went by he had a big smile on his face and raised his index finger and thumb about 1 inch apart. I laughed, he laughed and I continued on.

No one ever seems as bothered by the sloppy terminology as I am, but I forge ahead anyway: Lane sharing is not LEGAL in California, it is simply NOT ILLEGAL. Many riders misinterpreted CHP's briefly posted position statement about it as a proclamation that lane sharing was "now officially legal."

My peeve aside, the slightly related point I'm trying to make is: I'm assuming that Oregon has some specific legislation making lane sharing illegal. Rather than saying you are trying to "legalize" it, isn't your effort more accurately described as "trying to make it less illegal?" But what is the strategy? Repeal whatever it is that makes it illegal? Add exceptions to the existing restrictions? If it's the latter, you might be careful what you ask for, because you might get it... in the form of ever complex and tangled laws that would make further progress increasingly difficult.

I'd love to see you guys just get rid of whatever silly business there is prohibiting lane sharing. You could argue that there are already laws in place to protect motorists from lane sharers (as there are in California), such as: Speed too fast for conditions, being reckless, etc.

No one ever seems as bothered by the sloppy terminology as I am, but I forge ahead anyway: Lane sharing is not LEGAL in California, it is simply NOT ILLEGAL. Many riders misinterpreted CHP's briefly posted position statement about it as a proclamation that lane sharing was "now officially legal."

.

AB51 made it legal. It is legal. We worked damn hard to have it in the CVC as legal.

21658.1. (a) For the purposes of this section, “lane splitting” means driving a motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, that has two wheels in contact with the ground, between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, including on both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways.
(b) The Department of the California Highway Patrol may develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist and the drivers and passengers of the surrounding vehicles.
(c) In developing guidelines pursuant to this section, the department shall consult with agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcyclist behavior, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(1) The Department of Motor Vehicles.
(2) The Department of Transportation.
(3) The Office of Traffic Safety.
(4) A motorcycle organization focused on motorcyclist safety

Because I have had this shown to me many times in response to my argument, and all I see is a definition for "lane splitting." I see no statement that it is or is not legal, I see no declaration of privilege or liability, nothing about its (in)appropriate use, etc. Before the enactment of this section, there was no offense called "lane splitting," and now, there is no situation where I can get all self-righteous, shake my fist, and say "EXCUSE me I'm LANE SPLITTING." I fail to see what it is about the section that "legalizes" lane splitting. The practice existed in the same form before and after, didn't it?

I'm not saying I'm any kind of legal expert or anything, but as far as the grand achievement riders seem to think it is, I'm just not seeing it.

I do notice that two wheels are required to be on the ground, so sorry guys, no lane splitting wheelies!

You--along with a few others who post on this topic--are apparently under the impression that Americans are allowed to do ONLY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT EXPLICITLY PERMITS and that anything else is prohibited. That's not how it works here, not at all. We can do whatever we want, and the government can sanction us only for acts that the law specifically disallows. One hundred years ago, alcohol use was legal because no law prohibited it. Then along came Prohibition. Then came repeal, by which drinking was legalized when the law prohibiting it was removed, reverting to the per-Prohibition state.

For lane-splitting, this concept is implemented with a box on traffic citation forms that requires an officer to enter the Vehicle Code section he or she claims was violated by a driver. Because there is no section prohibiting lane-splitting, it is legal.

AB51 was a big win not because something that was previously illegal became legal, but because it formally recognizes lane-splitting and authorizes CHP to publish guidelines. In addition, it was a political defeat of forces who wanted a law that would ban it.

__________________"Hate speech needs to be stopped, but there's quite a bit of content near the perimeter of hate speech that we need to address as well."--Fascistbook "data science manager" surfing the slippery slope of speech policing